Slashdot Mirror
OpenLeaks — 'A New WikiLeaks'
Flixie writes "Swedish newspaper dagens Nyheter reports: '...[S]everal key figures behind the website that publishes anonymous submissions and leaks of sensitive governmental, corporate, organizational or religious documents have resigned in protest against the controversial leader Julian Assange only to launch a new service for the so-called whistleblowers. The goal: to leak sensitive information to the public."
And ten more shall take his place
Just as the US government, and a bunch of private companies (perhaps guided by the US government) are attempting to destroy wikileaks?
I don't know, with all the trouble going on - Assange getting arrested, sites getting DDOSed, more people getting arrested for DDOSsing... I think that now is defentally not the best time for this. Public sympathy is too erratic at the moment - adding more sites like that will only make the situation worse.
When its one site, its an anomaly - what's next, a law to prevent similar sites? If they keep popping up like mushrooms, there's going to be less "Please stop letting them get funds" and more "We classify protecting the identity of leakers to be a terrorist act.. bla bla bla"
Wikileaks has credibility; Assange does not. I mean, he told a reporter that he was too busy to talk to them because he "too busy ending two wars." That kind of narcissism is profoundly stupid.
He gets himself on the news and he stays there. What good is a leak site if after the first leak it disappears from the public eye and any remaining data will miraculously disappear along with all the people that work for it who have "accidents"?
I dream of a nation where a man is not judged by his skin color but by an number assigned by a credit rating agency.
and VisualLeaks, DynamicLeaks, and TeenLeaks (oh wait that one already exists) Seriously, anyone else bothered by the predictability of made up internet words.
Why should moral responsiblity == solidarity?
Isn't that one of the problems with many movements, the leaders (w/ all of their faults) are often deified and thus are become easy targets for the opposition. Of course you can argue vaguely about a greater good or the lesser evil, but why not strive for an organization that isn't about a person, but is about an ideal? Do we always have to have egomanics representing a cause?
And who's to say that they really are former Wikileaks members, and not agents of the CIA seeking to intercept leaks and trace them back to the source?
*dons tinfoil hat*
Credibility means fairly little to the organization organizing the leaks - what matters are the outlets.
I think Wikileaks got it exactly right this time, using some of the most respected newspapers in the world to filter and disseminate the cables, rather than attempting to dump them directly. Sure, they got stick from the usual suspects, but the reality is that nobody is questioning the credibility of the leaks themselves: if The Guardian posts a cable reporting that, to use a real example, defense contractor Dyncorp organizes child rape parties for Afghan warlords in order to close the sale, and the US government's complicity in covering it up, we pretty much accept it, in a way less likely to happen if it's some random voice on the Internet posting what they claim is a cable.
OpenLeaks is made up of people who know this. I don't think they'll have an issue.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
Unlike WikiLeaks, Openleaks will not receive and publish information directly for the public eye. Instead, other organizations will access the Openleaks system and in turn, present their audience with the material. Documents will be processed and published by various collaborating organizations.
Who are these other organisations? Surely one of advantage of wikileaks is that leakers are separate from publication. Under Openleak's nebulous "other organisations" leakers might feel more, rather than less, vulnerable. Or am I wrong?
How is this more transparent then WikiLeaks when the public can't even see the information when it finally IS released?
The first thing that came to my mind is that it's a new site is being set up to catch whistle blowers. Leak occasional trivial documents to snare the big ones. I don't condone any of this but it wouldn't surprise me in the slightest.
so, they will leak the information to journalists. the people that any notable ones from among them would be in the employ of established media conglomerates, which are subject to pressure of politicians and corporations ?
i think the fact that there has been no major leak that is detrimental to a government or a company has occurred since watergate, escapes these people. werent there any scoops ? werent there any brave journalists to handle them ? surely. why didnt anything in the scale of watergate came up ?
information must be provided to EVERYONE. we are the people, we are the owners of these governments and countries. we have the right to see them first hand. not anyone else, regardless of their profession.
by the way, journalists are people too, from among us. if you release it to us, you release it to everyone.
Read radical news here
Well, his inflated ego is what got wikileaks on the map. I sort of believe we need someone as bold as him.
Wilileaks sounds like an old man's disease.
...politically-correct organizations who will decide what we need to see and what would "confuse" us.
Bugger that. Release all of the raw data to the public or you're no better than Fox News and Huffington Post.
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
So there's no leaking, only controlled information transfer to participating organizations. If I was a whistleblower, I'd worry that the serious risks I'm taking to make information available will be wasted.
Yes.
1. People who aren't egomaniacs don't want to be the face of a cause.
2. Causes aren't successful without faces attached to them.
Thus, causes that become popular will always have egomaniacs leading them. Even Gandhi was a bit of an egomaniac, though less reprehensibly than most.
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
the responsibility of censoring information that u.s. or other governments dont want published ?
wikileaks already has removed names from those leaks. there isnt any sensitive info in them in regard to 'people's lives'.
and what will these people do ? release information to NEWS outlets. 90% of news outlets in usa are owned by parent corporations of 4 movie studios. and they are the very corporations who are also pressurizing and villifying wikileaks.
i fail to see your logic regarding 'fresh'. that seems like what we have been NOT having since watergate : journalism.
i dont want my information censored or edited by any news corporation. i want it direct and uncensored.
Read radical news here
I propose a counter-wikileaks website to leak sensitive personal information to Governments and corporates. The idea is you enter all you personal information, brag about your potentially criminal behaviour, as well as spend time on the site interacting socially so the site can establish a pattern of behaviour including what you "like" etc.
Damn.. someone beat me too it...
After logging in slashdot still does not take you back to the page you were on. It's been that way for 20 years.
Here and on Reddit, every single time a story about Wikileaks comes up I always state that as cool as Wikileaks seems it is terribly flawed overall and far too important to leave as it is... every single time I get downvoted/modded troll/whatever and everyone busts out the hate... after this last debacle people have finally opened their damn eyes and I couldn't be happier. The media is broken which is why Wikileaks is even relevant, and we all need to stand up and win the most important war of our lifetime: The War on Information. The other great thing that will come of this is that the media will see all of the potential and thirst for actual news and information and hopefully shift back to what thy should have been doing all along.
http://teasphere.wordpress.com - A little spot of tea
The Constitution doesn't mention "journalists". It references freedom of the press:
A press is a device for duplicating written matter. So the Constitution is recognizing the right to publish using presses (as opposed to speaking with your voice). Time passes. Huge presses are reduced to small laser printers.
More time passes. A worldwide network for electronic publishing emerges. Anybody who cares about limits of government would say the Congress does not have the power to limit the ability to use presses (electronic or otherwise).
And the right of the press isn't limited to any one specially-favored group that calls itself "the" press.
I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on the Internet. Blog
Assange was originally a programmer; overinflated ego comes with the territory.
It's easy to armchair quarterback Wikileaks from your computer, isn't it? Assange is taking a very real stand with very real consequences against some very nasty people working in very compromised governments. You need to be a bit insane, a bit self-important, and more than a bit strong on your convictions and courage to have a mindset that enables to think this is a logical idea. You may not like the way Assange operates, but did you see anyone else do it? No? Exactly.
If the information is available to the public, then there's a greater risk of someone crying foul about any 'tweaks' that are made to the story. Also, it also means that it isn't a he said/she said thing. 'Scientific journalism' is good because it allows different news outlets to draw their own conclusions based on the actual leak, rather then passing through a game of Chinese Whispers. For example, an Australian Labour Party power broker passed on information, tipping the US off about Julia Gillard taking over Kevin Rudd's role as PM a year before it actually happened. I've seen everything on it from condemning it as pandering to the US, to passing it off as business as usual - explaining that it's important to share information to keep diplomatic lines open.
The fact that the leak is out there for anyone to see means that spin can be kept to a minimum at least, they can't outright lie because people will check the facts against the evidence.
Our culture doesn't get smarter, it just finds new ways of being retarded.
you'll find that there were weapons in the group
That's right, because the government should have the right to kill anyone who stands next to a person exercising their right to bear arms.
1300 people dead because they refused to put up with the shit any more, as opposed to several thousand dead from malaria and the country's resources being misused.
Was the leak a good or bad thing? Did it lead to 1300 deaths or save a few thousand more in the long term?
This isn't playschool, there isn't a clear good and bad, just shades of grey and complicated trade-offs.
That's the attitude that got George W. Bush elected. "This Gore guy really sounds like he knows what he's talking about, and this Bush guy looks confused, but Gore keeps sighing and being an asshole and berating poor Bush. I'm not voting for Gore, I'd never sit down and drink a beer with him!"
Why is it more important to be likable than credible?
"From the depths of my skeptical and rationalist soul, I ask the Lord to protect me from California touchie-feeliedom."
Oh my, that evil Julian Assange. If he hadn't revealed that Kenyan politicians were horribly corrupt, the populace would've just voted for the right guy and the incumbent wouldn't have had to blatantly rig the elections to stay in power, causing mass rioting. It's all Assange's fault for not allowing the Kenyan populace to remain in blissful ignorance of just how corrupt and screwed up their political system is. The corrupt, vote-rigging politicians bear no responsibility for it whatsoever.
Seriously, though - did you really just blame Assange and Wikileaks for that?
When people leak stuff it's not about the cool new technology that ends up in some high tech weapon. They leak about people lying, cheating and generally breaking the rules. It's not about releasing information about soldiers killing enemy forces in battle. It's about unaccountable spooks breaking dozens of laws and the charter of their organisations by torturing people to death.
Now we've had a lot of bullshit where manipulative bastards say that anyone that says anything bad about their own side, true or not, is "giving comfort to the enemy." That's just an excuse to be able to let the dead wood say at their posts without being embarrassed by enormous fuckups. The comfort angle in this case is utter bullshit because it really does not matter if somebody does the equivalent of point at one of these things and say "haha".
If this site is staffed by ex-Wikileaks members then Wikileaks is better without them since they didn't understand the point that Wikileaks is not about "leaks" but about accountability. A democracy without accountability is no better than a tyranny and the key to a lack of accountability in a sick democracy is the control of the mass media.
Mexico: 100% conservative's America now!